Maleficent (film)

Angelina Jolie had been attached to the project since March 2010, when Tim Burton, who had tentatively planned to direct, chose not to pursue it.[9][10] Jolie's desire to play this role stemmed from her love of the character when she was a little girl.[11] Linda Woolverton was commissioned to write the script for the film.[12] On January 6, 2012, Disney announced that Robert Stromberg, the production designer of Alice in Wonderland and Oz the Great and Powerful, would direct the film.[13] Joe Roth, Don Hahn, and Richard D. Zanuck were hired as producers, although Zanuck died later that year.[14] Roth said the film would not have been made if Jolie had not agreed to take the title role: "She seemed like the only person who could play the part. There was no point in making the movie if it wasn't her."[15] According to Hahn, the film was originally set to be animated, but was changed to a live-action feature after Jolie's casting.[16]

In March 2012, Elle Fanning was reported to be in talks for the role of Princess Aurora, the Sleeping Beauty.[17][18] Her casting was officially announced in May 2012, along with Sharlto Copley as the male lead, King Stefan, Princess Aurora's father, then described as the half-human, half-fairy son of a human king, along with Imelda Staunton; Miranda Richardson as Queen Ulla, then described as a fairy queen who is Maleficent's aunt with a dislike of her niece; Kenneth Cranham as a king; Sam Riley as Diaval, a raven that changes into human form and is Maleficent's right hand; and Lesley Manville.[5]

Director Stromberg highlighted the "wonderful" contrast between the two lead actresses, Elle Fanning and Angelina Jolie, calling the character of Aurora the "beacon of light" that he was looking forward to blending with the darkness of Maleficent.[19]

Linda Woolverton's screenplay went through at least 15 versions as the film progressed in production.[21] Stromberg said: "I met many times with Linda Woolverton, the writer. We did lots of roundtable discussions and sort of cut out the fat as much as we could and sort of purified the storyline as much as we could".[22] Paul Dini also performed rewrites on the project with Stromberg,[23] and was credited in early press.[24][25] In some earlier versions of the story, Stefan was the half-human, half-fairy bastard son of King Henry. The version of the screenplay that went into shooting originally included two characters called Queen Ulla and King Kinloch, the fairy queen and the fairy king of the Moors, and the aunt and uncle of Maleficent.[5] Miranda Richardson and Peter Capaldi were cast and shot the Queen Ulla and King Kinloch scenes, but their roles were cut in the editing process together with more than 15 minutes of the first act of the film. Stromberg said: "We spent a bit more time originally in the fairy world before we got into the human side of things ... we wanted to get it [the film] under two hours. So we cut about 15 minutes out of the first act, and then that had to be seamed together with some pretty basic reshoots."[26]

Stromberg later claimed in an interview that he employed an "age-old" emotional storytelling for the film and called it "the biggest thrill" against all technology advances.[19] "And the way we play with that is we have somebody who's perhaps in love but betrayed and doesn't believe that true love exists. So the moral to it is we can all feel dark ourselves but not to lose hope because there is light in places where we might not be expecting", he explained.[19]

Principal photography began on June 13, 2012 at Pinewood Studios.[27][28] Some filming took place in the Buckinghamshire countryside near Turville.[29]

John Lee Hancock assisted Stromberg with reshoots for the film. Hancock, who had just finished overseeing the final postproduction stages of Saving Mr. Banks, was approached by producer Joe Roth, with whom he had worked on Snow White and the Huntsman. Roth said: "He's not directing. He wrote pages, and I hired a first-time director, and it's good to have him on set." Roth was asked why a "film of this magnitude was entrusted to a novice director", and he noted that Stromberg won Academy Awards for production design on Avatar and Alice in Wonderland. Roth said: "The movie is gorgeous to look at, and the last 75 minutes are really entertaining. The issue was the opening, which was reshot over eight days."[30]

As a previous production designer, Stromberg sought to balance the use of practical and computer-generated effects. For example, while Maleficent's horns and facial prosthetics were created by makeup artist Rick Baker, Digital Domain took facial capture of Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville, and Juno Temple for the three pixies to be generated with high authenticity with the help of special rigging by Disney Research in Zurich.[19] For the visuals, Stromberg wanted to make it "a bit more grounded" and "not too surreal" because it could be distracting from the simplicity of the story.[19] He also regretted not employing bigger sets and allowing actors to work in a more tangible environment, on "real sets with real lights".[19]

A tie-in novelization of the film written by Elizabeth Rudnick was published by Disney Publishing Worldwide on April 29, 2014.[45]

Maleficent earned a gross of $241.4 million in the US and Canada, and $517.1 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of $758.5 million against a budget of $180 million.[1] Calculating in all expenses, Deadline Hollywood estimated that the film made a profit of $190.77 million, making it the sixth most profitable film of 2014.[53] Worldwide, in its opening weekend, the film earned $175.5 million,[54][55] $9 million of which were from IMAX locations.[56] It is also the biggest debut among films starring Angelina Jolie,[56] and the actress' highest-grossing film of all time worldwide,[57][58] as well as the fourth-highest grossing 2014 film (behind Transformers: Age of Extinction, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, and Guardians of the Galaxy), and the 15th Disney-distributed film to surpass the $700 million mark at the worldwide box office.[59] The film is also one of four Walt Disney Studios releases in 2014 to gross over $500 million; the other titles being Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and Big Hero 6.[60]

In North America, Maleficent earned $4.2 million in Thursday-night showings, surpassing the midnight or late-night grosses of previous live-action fantasy films, Alice in Wonderland, Oz the Great and Powerful[61][62] and Snow White and the Huntsman. By the end of its opening day (including late-night Thursday earnings), the film earned $24.3 million, similar to Oz, but ahead of Snow White and the Huntsman and behind Alice.[63] Maleficent finished its debut weekend at first place with $69.4 million[54] ($6.7 million of which was earned from IMAX locations and 35% of which was earned from 3D showings),[64][65] which exceeded Disney's expectations of a $60 million opening[66] and making it the largest opening-weekend performance for a live-action film starring Jolie (a record previously held by her 2008 film Wanted),[64] as well as the third-highest opening weekend for a solo female star (behind the first two films in The Hunger Games series).[67] Disney reported that 46% of ticket buyers in Thursday previews were male,[61] while weekend reports said family audiences accounted for 45% of the film's total audience, and couples and teens accounted for 38% and 18%, respectively.[64][66] Female audiences and moviegoers over 25 years old held respective proportions of 60% and 51%.[64] Dave Hollis, head of Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, attributed this success to "some momentum and great word-of-mouth."[66] During its first week, the film earned $93.8 million, ahead of Snow White yet behind Oz and Alice.[68] In its second weekend, Maleficent dropped by 50.6% to $34.3 million, finishing in second place.[54] It experienced a smaller second-weekend drop than Snow White,[69][70] yet still bigger than Oz and Alice.[71] In North America, Maleficent is the eighth-highest-grossing 2014 film.[72]

Maleficent opened outside North America on the same weekend as North America, earning $20.1 million from 35 territories in its first two days (May 28–29, 2014).[73] During its opening weekend, the film topped the box office with $106.1 million from 47 territories.[55] Its largest opening weekends were in China ($22.2 million),[74] Mexico ($14.0 million), and Russia and the CIS ($13.0 million).[56] On the second weekend of release, Maleficent fell to $61.7 million, earning from 52 markets.[75][76] It was in first place at the box office outside North America on three weekends, its first, third ($39.2 million)[77][78] and fourth ($47.9 million).[79]

Maleficent is the fourth-highest grossing 2014 film,[80] and Angelina Jolie's highest-grossing live-action film.[57] In total earnings, the film's top markets after North America are Japan ($57.6 million), China ($47.7 million), Mexico ($46.2 million), Russia ($37.7 million), Brazil ($33.2 million), the United Kingdom ($31.7 million), Venezuela ($24.5 million), and Italy ($19.1 million).[81] It was also the most watched film at the Maltese box office in 2014, enjoying an eighteen-week run.[82]

Dave Lewis, writing for HitFix, predicted that although Disney fairy tales and Angelina Jolie's performance might attract audiences, Maleficent would not gross even as much as Oz the Great and Powerful, explaining that the film was released on the same time frame with competitive releases such as X-Men: Days of Future Past, Godzilla, and A Million Ways to Die in the West,[83] though it outperformed those films later on. Boxoffice wrote that Maleficent had a successful marketing campaign, featured Jolie in the title role, and its "female-driven" themes and plot aimed at women. However, the site also noted that the film would have to compete with other summer releases, and the character of Maleficent may not attract young children.[84] Todd Cunningham of The Wrap shared the same opinion, writing, "[the film's] connecting with parents and that Jolie's considerable star power is having a big impact."[85][86] Wells Fargo's Marci Ryvicker predicted that Maleficent might be "too dark and scary to be profitable" and was likely to force Disney "into a write-down", as reported by The New York Times; while RBC Capital Markets' David Bank commented that "It's definitely in the 'not a sure thing' bucket."[87][88][89] Wall St. Cheat Sheet explained that the film approached to a more "grown-up" and "sinister" aspect of the classic, and targeted for an older audience like young adults. "It's just too scary for younger children," the site wrote.[90] ScreenRant added that the PG rating of the film would "fill a void in the marketplace, which is currently without a traditional "family friendly" option."[91] Box Office Mojo primarily compared the film with 2012's Snow White and the Huntsman (another film that also focused on a fairy tale villain), predicting that Maleficent "has a good chance" of matching Snow White's gross in North America box office.[92] The film, however, ended up grossing double the amount projected.

Variety wrote that the film's opening weekend outperforming initial box-office projections was later attributed by analysts in part to Disney's successful marketing to the "potent demographic" (female audiences) much like the studio accomplished with Frozen, in which both films feature a strong female lead.[93] Disney argued that a lack of family-friendly options in the marketplace would "bode well for Maleficent's [box-office] performance" in its two first weeks of release.[93]

The cost of the film was offset by a rebate from the UK in the amount of £23,535,108 ($37 million in 2012, the period in which it was shot).[94]

Maleficent was released by Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment on Blu-ray, DVD, Blu-ray 3D, and digital download on November 4, 2014.[95] The film topped the home-video sales chart in its first week of release.[96] As of February 2015, Maleficent has made over $74 million in total home-video sales.[97] Maleficent was released on 4K UHD Blu-ray on September 24, 2019.[98]

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 54% based on 273 reviews, with an average rating of 5.70/10. The website's critical consensus reads: "Angelina Jolie's magnetic performance outshines Maleficent's dazzling special effects; unfortunately, the movie around them fails to justify all that impressive effort."[99] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 56 out of 100 based on 44 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[100] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an "A" grade on a scale of A+ to F.[101][102] Jolie's performance in the film was repeatedly singled out for praise.

The New York Times stated, "with two shorn wings and an astonishing maternal kiss, Maleficent demolishes stereotypes that were only tweaked in Frozen."[103] Kate Taylor of The Globe and Mail was very positive about the film, writing that "[it] surprises not for its baroque visions of a colourful woodland enlivened by joyous fairies and a forbidding castle peopled by unhappy humans, but rather for the thematic richness of its story gloriously personified by Angelina Jolie in the title role." While criticizing the overuse of CGI and 3D effects, she particularly praised the positive message of the film and Jolie's performance. She concluded her review with, "Long live the feminist revisionist backstory."[104] On the contrary, Keith Staskiewicz, writing for the Entertainment Weekly, awarded the film a "B−" and wrote that "there's a lot of levitating cliffs and odd flora. But despite their bleeding-edge digital design, the backgrounds have all the depth of the old matte-painted backgrounds of the analog days," which made the film "[feel] classical in nature." He further commented that "The characters are boiled down to their essentials, the humor is timelessly broad."[105] Michael Philips of the Chicago Tribune gave the film two and a half stars, commenting that the recent "formula" that "a new angle on a well-known fairy tale appears in the light" "works" with Maleficent. He also said that the film "is all about second thoughts", as Maleficent "spends much of the film as Aurora's conflicted fairy godmother." Phillips particularly praised Jolie and Elle Fanning's acting, Rick Baker's makeup (for Jolie's "angular, serrated look"), but criticized James Newton Howard's "sloshy, pushy" musical score.[106] Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph wrote, "This Disney reimagining of Sleeping Beauty lacks true enchantment, but Angelina Jolie saves the day."[107] Betsy Sharkey of the Los Angeles Times gave the film a positive review, writing "This is Jolie's film because of the Maleficent she makes. Everyone else, even Aurora, fades in her presence."[108] J.C. Maçek III of PopMatters wrote, "Even at its silliest, Maleficent is a well-acted film, with Sharlto Copley turning in a memorable performance and Elle Fanning proving to be an inspired choice for Aurora/Sleeping Beauty. Jolie manages to steal her own show in most every scene. Jolie is excellent as the hopeful fairy, enjoying the world she flies through. She is also brilliant as the Dark Lady, who could be a perfect counterpart to any Darth Vader, as she malevolently takes her revenge on those who have wronged her."[109]

Ann Hornaday of The Washington Post awarded the film three-and-a-half out of four stars, commenting, "Still, for all its limitations, Maleficent manages to be improbably entertaining to watch, due solely to its title character."[110] Writing for Roger Ebert's website, Matt Zoller Seitz awarded Maleficent three out of four stars, praising the themes of the film and the acting of Jolie. Seitz also called the scene in which Maleficent discovers the loss of her wings "the most traumatizing image I've seen in a Hollywood fairy tale since the Christ-like sacrifice of Aslan in 2005's The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe."[111] The review in The Globe and Mail further explained that "in the simple context of a fairy tale, Jolie does make both the terrifying horned creature and her gradual awakening heartfelt," extolling the "emotional richness" behind her physical acts.[104] Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times felt more negatively, assigning it a D. Although Roeper praised the visuals, he criticized the acting and writing, stating that "the story itself might well put you into the same type of coma that befalls the heroine."[112]

Mary Costa, who voiced Aurora in the 1959 animated motion picture, called the film, "a very good movie". She added that "the concept and perspective are totally different than the original film's, which makes it new and interesting." As for Jolie's performance, she said, "No one could have played the part of Maleficent better," concluding that "she was absolutely magnificent!"[113]

Multiple reviewers and commentators have opined that an early scene in the movie, in which Stefan drugs Maleficent and removes her wings from her unconscious body, is a metaphor for rape. Hayley Krischer of The Huffington Post interpreted the scene as an important reference to rape culture: "This is the horrific side of rape culture. We're so enmeshed in it that it's impossible to ignore a metaphoric rape that occurs in a Disney movie". She went on to praise the film for giving a positive and hopeful message to rape victims, ultimately allowing "the woman to recover. It gives her agency. It gives her power. It allows her to reclaim the story".[114] Monika Bartyzel of The Week noted the scene's implications in her review: "In its first act, Maleficent offers a dark, surprisingly adult exploration of rape and female mutilation".

However, Bartyzel went on to opine that the film portrayed Maleficent's actions as "a rape revenge fantasy" and criticized the film for not following through on its early subtext, ultimately calling it less feminist and reductive compared to its 1959 counterpart: "In Maleficent, Aurora is the product of a cold and loveless marriage and a vengeful, unhinged rapist. Her safety relies on a trio of clueless and dangerously careless fairies, and her Godmother is the woman who cursed her—and who had, in turn, been violated by her own father".[115]

Angelina Jolie addressed the issue during an interview with BBC Radio 4 on the Woman's Hour programme and claimed that the subtext was intentional: "The question was asked: 'What could make a woman become so dark and lose all sense of her maternity, her womanhood, and her softness?' ... We were very conscious, the writer and I, that [the scene] was a metaphor for rape". She further explained that the answer to the question "What could bring her back?" was still "an extreme Disney, fun version [of the story]", but "at the core it is abuse, and how the abused then have a choice of abusing others or overcoming and remaining loving, open people".[116][117]

Jordan Shapiro of Forbes argued that the film's main subtext was the detrimental effects of ultimata between capitalist and socialist societies. He pointed out that the Moors represented a socialist, nature-oriented, democratic society, while the human kingdom was one of capitalism, industry, and absolute monarchy. Shapiro further commented that the character of Stefan, his theft of the Moors' riches (the jewel), and his mutilation of Maleficent's wings for the sake of his ambition were references to the American Dream.

He conceived the wing-tearing scene as "a social commentary that any hierarchical rise to power inherently happens through the exploitation of others", explaining that it was the reason why "without her wings, Maleficent also becomes an oppressive ruler of the Moors. Everything she represents, believes, and stands for has been grounded", and "like most victims of oppression", "she takes it out on those who are smaller and weaker". He concluded that through the merge of the two kingdoms at the end of the film, it sought to weave together capitalism and socialism and let go oppositions: "It is time to leave the kingdom of familiar partisan oppositions: let's replace either/or with neither/nor or both/and".[118]